Journal of Occupational Health Psychology Copyright 2008 by the American Psychological Association

2008, Vol. 13, No. 4, 357–370 1076-8998/08/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1076-8998.13.4.357

Use of Both Qualitative and Quantitative Approaches to Study Job

Stress in Different Gender and Occupational Groups
Cong Liu Paul E. Spector
Hofstra University University of South Florida

Lin Shi
Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Gender differences in job stress were investigated, collecting both qualitative (stressful incidents
at work) and quantitative (rating scales of commonly experienced job stressors and strains) data
from a sample of university employees. Content analyses of the qualitative data revealed 5 major
job stressors, 5 major psychological strains, and 4 major physical strains experienced by both
genders. When comparisons are made between men and women on their job stress experiences,
a potential confounder is occupation, for which the authors controlled. While the authors
controlled for occupation, women reported more overall psychological strains (as indicated by the
qualitative data) and depression (as indicated by the quantitative data) than did men. Conversely,
while the authors controlled for gender, faculty reported more anger and less frustration (as
indicated by the qualitative data) and less turnover intentions (as indicated by the quantitative
data) than did support staff. In this study, both qualitative and quantitative data indicated
interaction effects between gender and occupation in predicting job stressors and strains. Finally,
there was a stronger relation between interpersonal conflicts and negative emotions/job satisfac-
tion were stronger for faculty than for staff.

Keywords: job stressor, job strain, gender, occupation, qualitative approach

Although job stress has become a popular topic of
research, demographic factors of occupation and gen-
der have not received sufficient systematic attention
(Iwasaki, MacKay, & Ristock, 2004). Though some
researchers studied job stress among occupations
(e.g., Liu, Spector, & Jex, 2005; Taris, Bakker,
Schaufeli, Stoffelsen, & van Dierendonck, 2005), not
many studies have focused on unique job stressors
and strains experienced by employees in different
occupations. Nonetheless, both gender and occupa-
tion contribute significantly to employees’ job stress
experiences (Narayanan, Menon, & Spector, 1999;
Pousette & Hanse, 2002). Narayanan et al. (1999)
used a qualitative method to study job stress
among professors, clerks, and sales associates. As
a replication and extension of their study, we ex-
Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, Hofstra Univer-
sity; Paul E. Spector, Department of Psychology, University
of South Florida; Lin Shi, College of Psychology, Beijing
Normal University, Beijing, China.
A portion of the data used in this article overlapped with
data in Liu, Spector, and Shi’s (2007) article.
Correspondence concerning this article should be ad-
dressed to Cong Liu, Department of Psychology, 135 Hof-
stra University, Hempstead, NY 11549. E-mail: cong.liu@
hofstra.edu
amined the role of gender and occupation on job
stressors and strains among university faculty and
support staff, utilizing both qualitative and quan-
titative methods.
Gender and Job Stress
Gender and Job Stressors
Some have suggested that men and women expe-
rience different stressors (e.g., Misra, McKean, West,
& Russo, 2000). Research has shown that men’s
stressors relate to finances (McDonough & Walters,
2001), work-related power (Spielberger & Vagg,
1999;Vagg, Spielberger, & Wasala, 2002), and job
responsibility (Sharada & Raju, 2001). On the other
hand, women’s stressors relate to social life (McDon-
ough & Walters, 2001), interpersonal issues (Thomp-
son, Kirk, & Brown, 2006), work–family conflicts
(Vagg et al., 2002), role conflict, and role ambiguity
(Sharada & Raju, 2001). Spielberger and Vagg
(1999) found that lack of participation and conflict
with other departments were more stressful for men,
whereas inadequate salary, insufficient personal time,
and competition for advancement were more stressful
for women.

357
358 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
Iwasaki et al. (2004) suggested that differences in
job stressor perceptions were due to the way in which
gender is socially constructed, especially that there
are different gender role expectations and responsi-
bilities for women and men. Women are expected to
be more relationship-focused than are men (e.g.,
Anderson, 1997). Interpersonal issues are more sa-
lient for female employees, as is indicated by fe-
male employees seeking more emotional support
and relying more on social networks (Belle, 1987;
Greenglass, 2003; Pines & Zaidman, 2003). In
comparison with their male counterparts, female
employees are more sensitive to interpersonal
problems. Since interpersonal issues are more sa-
lient and important for women than for men, inter-
personal problems might be more serious for
women (Narayanan et al., 1999). Thus, women
may experience greater interpersonal stressors than
do men (Thompson et al., 2006). However, be-
cause gender and occupation can be confounded
(Hall, 1989), it is important to control for occupa-
tion when testing for gender differences.
Hypothesis 1: Female employees report more
interpersonal conflicts at work than do their
male counterparts (controlled for occupation).
Gender and Job Strains
Research has suggested that women experience
higher levels of job strain than do men (Greenglass,
1991; Jick & Mitz, 1985). The differential vulnera-
bility hypothesis proposes that women tend to per-
ceive more strain than do men when facing identical
situations (McDonough & Walters, 2001; Roxburgh,
1996), because women are more sensitive to discom-
forts and are more willing to express problems (Ver-
brugge, 1985). The social/psychological hypothesis
suggests that women and men appraise stressful sit-
uations differently (Jick & Mitz, 1985). Women are
socialized to view job stressors in a less confident
way than are men, resulting in their having more
strains (Frankenhaeuser, Rauste von Wright, Collins,
von Wright, Sedvall, & Swahn, 1978). The differen-
tial exposure hypothesis suggests that women face
more objective stressors and accordingly, experience
more strains than do men (McDonough & Walters,
2001; Roxburgh, 1996). Women might set higher
standards for themselves, and accordingly, they ex-
perience more strains when the standards are not met
(Weinstein & Zappert, 1980). These hypotheses are
supported by studies showing higher levels of strain
in women than in men in various occupational
groups. For example, women reported higher levels
of depression (Jurado, Gurpegui, Moreno, Fernandez,
Luna, & Galvez, 2005) and general strain (Day &
Livingstone, 2003; Kirkcaldy, Brown, Furnham, &
Trimpop, 2002) than did men. It should be noted that
not all studies have found higher strain in women; for
example, Lackritz (2004) found that men reported
higher levels of burnout. Still other researchers did
not find gender differences in job satisfaction and
general job strain (e.g., Griffin, 2006; Owen, 2006).
Hypothesis 2: Female employees report more
and a higher level of job strain than do their
male counterparts (controlled for occupation).
Occupation and Job Stress
Job Stressors for Employees in
Different Occupations
Employees in different occupations may experi-
ence different job stressors (Keenan & Newton,
1985; Narayanan et al., 1999; Vagg et al., 2002),
particularly when those occupations differ in status.
University faculty and staff engage in different tasks,
and they receive different levels of respect and rec-
ognition. The OⴱNET database (Occupational Infor-
mation Network, 2007) reported that the recognition
scores are 70 and 45 for psychology faculty and
clerks, respectively. A higher-status job of professor
also has more job autonomy than does a lower-status
job of a university support employee (Narayanan et
al., 1999). The OⴱNET database indicated that the
independence scores are 80 and 36 for psychological
faculty and clerks, respectively. Finally, according to
the structuralist explanation that focuses on the dif-
ferences in employees’ work situations (Jick & Mitz,
1985), faculty usually have more structural advantage
with respect to influence, mobility, and job autonomy
than do support staff.
Hypothesis 3a: Faculty report a higher level of
job autonomy than do support staff, whereas
support staff report more incidents of lack of job
autonomy than do faculty.
As occupational status and job autonomy increase,
the potential for interpersonal conflicts increases ac-
cordingly (Menon, Narayanan, & Spector, 1996). In-
dividuals who have greater status and autonomy are
less dependent on others and thus may be less moti-
vated to maintain harmonious working relationships.
The nature of these jobs has determined that faculty
 JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
are less cooperative than are support staff. Support
for this is found in the OⴱNET database (Occupa-
tional Information Network, 2007), in which scores
for “cooperation” are lower for faculty (76) than for
office clerks (90). Using a qualitative approach,
Narayanan et al. (1999) found that interpersonal con-
flict was the top stressor for university professors but
not for clerical workers. Similarly, Keenan and New-
ton (1985) found that interpersonal conflict was one
of the most important job stressors for engineers.
Hypothesis 3b: Faculty report more interper-
sonal conflicts than do support staff.
Job Strains for Employees in
Different Occupations
Job strains may differ as a function of occupations.
Kasl (1998) found that workers at a lower occupa-
tional status who were doing routine jobs experi-
enced greater alienation and more absence than did
workers with less routine jobs. Marchand, Durand,
and Demers (2005) examined the distribution of psy-
chological distress among 12 occupations in Canada.
They concluded that upper managers experienced
less psychological distress than did lower-level em-
ployees. Likewise, lower-level workers reported less
job satisfaction and more strains than did higher-level
workers (Guppy & Rick, 1996; Judge, Boudreau, &
Bretz, 1996).
Hypothesis 4: Support staff report more and
higher levels of job strain than do faculty.
Interactions Between Gender and
Occupational Status
The distribution of men and women across jobs is
not equal (Hall, 1989). In university settings, faculty
are disproportionately men and staff are dispropor-
tionately women. Research has shown that the nu-
merical minorities are more visible than are the nu-
merical majorities (Lord & Saenz, 1985; Taylor,
Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978). Being underrep-
resented may have a negative influence on employ-
ees’ job stressors and strains (Burke & McKeen,
1996; Dworkin, Chaftez, & Dworkin, 1986; Jackson,
Thoits, & Taylor, 1995; Miner-Rubino & Cortina,
2004; Ott, 1989).
Hypothesis 5: Gender and occupation interacts
in predicting job stressors and job strains, re-
spectively. Female faculty and male staff expe-
359
rience more job stressors (e.g., interpersonal
conflict and lack of job autonomy) and strains
(e.g., frustration, depression, job dissatisfaction,
turnover intentions, and physical strains) than
do male faculty and female staff.
Interpersonal Conflict–Job Strain Relations in
Different Gender and Occupational Groups
Interpersonal conflict at work has been linked to
various job strains, such as depression, job dissatis-
faction, turnover intentions, and physical symptoms
(Appelberg, Romanov, Heikkilä, Honkasalo, &
Koskenvuo, 1996; Frone, 2000; Spector & Jex,
1998). Interpersonal relationships are more important
for female employees than for male employees
(Stewart & Lykes, 1985). For example, Josephs,
Markus, and Tafarodi (1992) pointed out that women
tended to base their self-esteem on their interpersonal
relationships. In addition, the social/psychological
hypothesis focused on the differential internal re-
sponses of men and women in stressful situations
(Jick & Mitz, 1985). Women tend to view stressful
experiences in a less confident way than do men
(Frankenhaeuser et al., 1978), resulting in experienc-
ing more strains. Taken together, we predict that
interpersonal conflicts are more harmful for women
than for men. Using open-ended questionnaires,
Narayanan et al. (1999) found that female employees
reported more interpersonal conflict incidents at work
than did their male counterparts. Day and Living-
stone (2003) found that women reported significantly
higher stressfulness than did men in friend-related
stress scenarios.
Hypothesis 6: Gender moderates the relations
between interpersonal conflict and job strains.
Specifically, the relations are stronger for
women than for men.
As was noted earlier, support staff are more con-
cerned with maintaining good working relationships,
which should lead to less frequent and less severe
conflicts than for faculty. When conflicts occur, the
need for cooperation will encourage a quick settling
of differences. The lesser intensity of conflict should
result in an attenuated effect on strains. For faculty,
on the other hand, conflict is less inhibited and can
more easily escalate and become serious; with inde-
pendence comes the luxury of being able to continue
conflict over a long period of time. Thus the relations
between conflict and strain would be stronger.
360 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
Hypothesis 7: Occupational status moderates the
relations between interpersonal conflict and job
strains. Specifically, the relations are stronger
for faculty than for support staff.
Method
Participants
Participants were university faculty of all ranks
and university support staff (e.g., receptionists, sec-
retaries, and office clerks) at the University of South
Florida, Tampa, FL. The overall sample included 336
participants (134 men and 198 women). There were
175 faculty members and 161 support staff. Median
age was between 40 and 49. The response rates were
45.2% and 20.6% for the quantitative and qualitative
data, respectively.
Measures
The study of gender and occupation differences
with quantitative scales blurs potential differences
across populations that might exist on variables not
included in the study (Liu, Spector, & Shi, 2007;
Narayanan et al., 1999; Vagg et al., 2002). Use of a
qualitative approach allows researchers to content-
analyze open-ended interview or questionnaire re-
sponses to reveal job stressor and strain themes that
are common across individuals (Liu et al., 2007;
Parkes, 1985). An important advantage of conducting
quantitative and qualitative research simultaneously
is the complementarities of the two methods to see
whether the two methods can yield converging re-
sults. In this study, we used both qualitative and
quantitative approaches to study job stress in differ-
ent gender and occupational groups.
Qualitative approach. The Stress Incident Record
(SIR; Keenan & Newton, 1985) was used to collect the
qualitative data. Each participant was asked to describe
one event that had been stressful at work during the
previous 30 days and to indicate whether no such event
occurred. Responses were content-analyzed to develop
a list of job stressors and strains (Kerlinger, 1964).
Guided by Weber’s (1990) procedures, three under-
graduate students were trained by Cong Liu to pro-
duce good interrater agreement. After the training,
two raters independently free-sorted responses into
job stressor and strain categories. Discrepancies were
discussed and resolved, and some categories were
combined by consensus. Next, a third rater indepen-
dently retranslated these incidents back to the cate-
gories. Interrater agreement, the percentage of times
the third rater placed an incident into the correct cat-
egory, was 90%. The raters discussed the “disagreed
incidents” to consensus.
Quantitative scales. Interpersonal conflict was
measured with the 4-item Interpersonal Conflict at
Work Scale (ICAWS; Spector & Jex, 1998). Re-
sponse options range from 1 ⫽ less than once per
month or never to 5 ⫽ several times per day. The
items were modified to measure conflict with super-
visor and conflict with coworker separately, as has
been suggested by Frone (2000). Coefficient alpha
was .87 for the Supervisor Conflict scale and .90 for
the Coworker Conflict scale. The two subscales were
combined (taking the average value) to measure
overall interpersonal conflicts. Job autonomy was
measured with a 3-item subscale from the Hackman
and Oldham’s (1976) Job Diagnostic Survey (JDS).
The scale was modified slightly, as has been sug-
gested by Idaszak and Drasgow (1987). Responses
range from 1 ⫽ very inaccurate to 7 ⫽ very accurate.
The coefficient alpha was .95.
Frustration was measured with a 3-item frustration
scale (Peters & O’Connor, 1980). Response options
range from 1 ⫽ strongly disagree to 6 ⫽ strongly
agree. The coefficient alpha was .65. Depression was
measured with a 9-item Patient Health Questionnaire
developed by Spitzer, Kroenke, and Williams (1999).
Response options range from 0 ⫽ not at all to 3 ⫽
nearly everyday. The coefficient alpha was .86. Neg-
ative emotions at work—such as furious, angry,
frightened, anxious, and disgusted—were measured
with 5 items from the Job-Related Affective Well-
Being Scale (JAWS; Van Katwyk, Fox, Spector, &
Kelloway, 1999). Response options range from 1 ⫽
never to 5 ⫽ extremely often or always. The coeffi-
cient alpha was .85. Job satisfaction was measured
with 3 items from the Michigan Organizational As-
sessment Scale (Cammann, Fichman, Jenkins, &
Klesh, 1979). Response options range from 1 ⫽
strongly disagree to 5 ⫽ strongly agree. The coeffi-
cient alpha was .82. Turnover intention was assessed
with a single-item measure (Spector, Dwyer, & Jex,
1988) that asked how often the person had been
seriously considering quitting. Response options are
from 1 ⫽ never to 6 ⫽ extremely often. Finally,
physical symptoms were assessed with the 18-item
Physical Symptoms Inventory (PSI) developed by
Spector and Jex (1998). There are three choices for
each item: no; yes, but I didn’t see doctor; yes, and I
saw doctor. The answers (both seeing and not seeing
doctors) were counted into a total symptom score, as
has been suggested by Spector and Jex (1998), and
 JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
was cumulated for each participant. The lowest pos-
sible score is 0, and the highest possible score is 36.
Procedure
Data were collected in 2002 in a single question-
naire, mailed to participants through the university
mail system. Participants were asked to complete the
questionnaires and return them through campus mail
in an enclosed return envelope. Participation was
voluntary and anonymous. A small gift was included
to increase response rate. A brief letter explaining the
purpose of the study and the instructions on filling
out each questionnaire was enclosed. After a period
of 2 weeks, reminders were sent.
Results
Content Analysis of Qualitative Data
Overall, 179 incidents were collected. Among
these, 142 employees reported psychological strains,
and 57 reported physical strains. Content analyses
revealed five job stressors: organizational constraints,
workload, interpersonal conflict, lack of job auton-
omy, work mistakes and an other category (e.g.,
boring tasks). Organizational constraints involved a
variety of issues such as equipment constraints, bud-
get cuts, or inadequate training. Work overload was
another theme, involving heavy workload, deadlines,
and time constraints. Interpersonal conflicts in uni-
versities involved conflicts with one’s coworker, su-
pervisor, student, or the administration. Another
source of stress for university employees was lack of
job autonomy. Finally, 6 faculty members reported
stressful incidents related to work mistakes or lack of
achievement. See Table 1 for example incidents in
each job-stressor category.
Content analyses also revealed five psychological
strains (anger, frustration, anxiety, overwhelmed, and
sadness) and an other category, such as disappoint-
ment; and four physical strains (tiredness, physical
tension, being sick, and stomach problem) and an
other category, such as sweaty palms. See Table 2 for
the details.
Effects of Gender, Occupation, and Their
Interactions on Job Stressors and Strains:
Qualitative Analysis
A 6 ⫻ 2 (job stressors ⫻ gender) chi-square test on
the qualitative data revealed a significant difference
between women and men in the nature of job stres-
361
sors reported (␹2 ⫽ 22.21, df ⫽ 5, p ⬍ .001). A series
of 2 ⫻ 2 (report vs. no-report ⫻gender) chi-square
tests on specific job stressors indicated that women
reported more interpersonal conflicts (␹2 ⫽ 3.43,
df ⫽ 1, p ⫽ .06) and lack of job autonomy (␹2 ⫽
3.43, df ⫽ 1, p ⫽ .06), whereas men reported more
workload (␹2 ⫽ 3.16, df ⫽ 1, p ⫽ .08) and work
mistakes (␹2 ⫽ 9.58, df ⫽ 1, p ⫽ .003).
Hypotheses 1, 3a, 3b, and 5 were tested with
hierarchical log-linear models. Gender, occupation,
and job stressors (report vs. no-report) were entered
as categorical factors. As can be seen in Table 3,
occupation (staff had more conflicts) and the gen-
der ⫻ occupation interaction were both significant in
predicting interpersonal conflict incidents, but gender
alone was not. Among faculty, women reported more
incidents than did men (27% vs. 9%, respectively),
whereas among support staff, men reported more
incidents than did women (42% vs. 25%, respec-
tively). Thus Hypotheses 3b and 5 were supported,
whereas Hypotheses 1 and 3a were not. None of the
main and interaction effects were significant when
predicting lack of job autonomy incidents. In addi-
tion, gender interacted with occupation in predicting
workload. Male faculty (34%) reported most work-
load incidents, followed by female staff (22%), fe-
male faculty (13%), and male staff (8%).
A 2 ⫻ 2 (overall psychological strain ⫻ gender)
and a 2 ⫻ 2 (overall physical strain ⫻ gender)
chi-square analysis indicated that women reported
more overall psychological strains (␹2 ⫽ 4.32, df ⫽
1, p ⫽ .04) and overall physical strains (␹2 ⫽ 4.45,
df ⫽ 1, p ⫽ .04) than did their male counterparts. A
6 ⫻ 2 (psychological strains ⫻ occupation) chi-
square analysis indicated that the nature of psycho-
logical strains reported by faculty and staff was sig-
nificantly different (␹2 ⫽ 11.87, df ⫽ 5, p ⫽ .04). A
series of 2 ⫻ 2 (report vs. no-report ⫻ occupation)
chi-square analyses on specific psychological strains
indicated that support staff reported significantly
more frustration than did faculty (␹2 ⫽ 8.94, df ⫽ 1,
p ⬍ .001), whereas faculty reporedt significantly
more anger than did staff (␹2 ⫽ 3.35, df ⫽ 1,
p ⫽ .05).
Hierarchical log-linear analyses were applied to
examine Hypotheses 2, 4, and 5. As can be seen from
Table 3, gender was significant for overall psycho-
logical strain and anger, and occupation was signif-
icant for frustration and anger, thus partially support-
ing Hypotheses 2 and 4. Women reported more
overall psychological strains and anger than did men.
Faculty reported more anger, whereas support staff
362 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI

Table 1
Content Analysis on Stressful Incident Records: Definition and Example Incidents for Each Job
Stress Category
Job stressor
Organizational constraints: A variety of
issues including equipments, budget cuts,
or inadequate training
Work overload: Heavy workload, deadlines,
or time constraints
Interpersonal conflicts: Conflicts with one’s
coworker, supervisor, student, or the
administration
Lack of job autonomy: Lack of autonomy
on work-related issues, such as making
work schedule, making decisions, etc.
Work mistakes: Dereliction of duty or
unsuccessfulness at work
Example incident
1. Arranged to use technology (computer with projection) in classroom;
server went down; implemented ‘back-up’ plan and back-up
equipment malfunctioned; rushed back and forth to tech support
services for assistance; not fixed before students arrived for class;
delivered lesson but not optimal quality.
2. I am new on the job without a great deal of training, many things
were being asked of me and I felt that my supervisor did not
understand there was no human way for me to perform well on all
of these things.
1. Meeting deadline on a grant, trying to get job done last minute
worked only involved two people and got done ultimately.
2. Another secretary has taken time off, and I’ve been filling in for her
(over the past month).
1. Conflict with coworker over content of a project. She approved a
document that I had not seen, which contained errors. When I went
alone her to put a stop on the document, she accused me of not help
a team player.
2. I have a co-worker, who lacks diplomatic skills. She is often
accusatory when something happens in our lab. Occasionally the lab
door is left unlocked and she starts throwing around accusations and
telling us what is going to happen (theft). She goes on a several
minute tirade. The incident involved a coworker shorting and
throwing accusations to me and other coworkers.
1. While at work, the program coordinator tried to overturn a decision I
made regarding a student. I had spent hours & hours arranging the
decision/ruling and felt very frustrated and angry that the program
coordinator spent more of my time on this and didn’t respect my
efforts or decision.
2. I felt stressed when my supervisor gave a list of things to do
routinely. To me it is very boring and mundane to do the same
things over and over at certain time. I was furious, and I ignored the
list for a couple of days. The list of duties was not different from
what I have been doing every day, but I felt like I was not doing the
job. I do not like being told what to do.
1. Trying to get a survey put together at the end of the semester. I
couldn’t get the program I was developing working properly and
finally had to abandon the project.

reported more frustration. Inconsistent with Hypoth- Effects of Gender, Occupation, and
esis 5, there were no significant interactions. Interactions on Job Stressors and Strains:
Quantitative Analysis

Analysis of Quantitative Data

The descriptive statistics and correlations among
the quantitative job stressors and strains are presented
in Table 4. Interpersonal conflict was positively re-
lated to all psychological and physical strains mea-
sured in this study. Job autonomy was negatively
related to frustration and turnover intention and was
positively related to job satisfaction.
The independent-samples t tests indicated that sup-
port staff experienced marginally more interpersonal
conflicts than did faculty (t ⫽ ⫺1.74, df ⫽ 225, p ⫽
.08). Two-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were
used to test Hypothesis 1, 3a, 3b, and 5 — the main
and interaction effects of gender and occupation on
job stressors. As can be seen from Table 5, none of
the effects were significant.
 JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT 363

Table 2
Content Analysis Results on Job Stressors, Psychological Strains, and Physical Strains
Report Report Report
frequency No report frequency No report frequency No report
Stress or strain (%) frequency Sex (%) frequency Job (%) frequency
Job stressors
Organizational constraints 42 (23) 137 M 15 (21) 55 Faculty 25 (24) 78
F 27 (25) 81 Staff 17 (22) 59
Workload 42 (23) 137 M 21 (30) 49 Faculty 26 (25) 77
F 20 (19) 88 Staff 16 (21) 60
Interpersonal conflicts 38 (21) 141 M 10 (14) 60 Faculty 17 (17) 86
F 28 (26) 80 Staff 21 (28) 55
Lack of job autonomy 38 (21) 141 M 10 (14) 60 Faculty 20 (19) 83
F 28 (26) 80 Staff 18 (24) 58
Work mistakes 6 (3) 173 M 6 (9) 64 Faculty 6 (6) 97
F 0 (0) 108 Staff 0 (0) 76
Other stressors 13 (7) 167 M 8 (11) 62 Faculty 9 (9) 94
F 5 (5) 103 Staff 4 (5) 73
All stressors 179 (100) 0 M 70 64 Faculty 103 70
F 108 90 Staff 76 83
Psychological strains
Anger 41 (23) 138 M 11 (16) 59 Faculty 28 (27) 75
F 30 (28) 78 Staff 13 (17) 63
Frustration 22 (12) 157 M 6 (9) 64 Faculty 6 (6) 97
F 15 (14) 93 Staff 16 (21) 60
Anxious 19 (11) 160 M 10 (14) 60 Faculty 12 (12) 91
F 9 (8) 99 Staff 7 (9) 69
Overwhelm 13 (7) 166 M 4 (6) 66 Faculty 8 (8) 95
F 9 (8) 99 Staff 5 (7) 71
Sadness 13 (7) 166 M 4 (6) 66 Faculty 9 (9) 94
F 9 (8) 99 Staff 4 (5) 73
Other psychological strains 33 (18) 146 M 11 (16) 59 Faculty 17 (17) 86
F 22 (20) 86 Staff 16 (21) 60
All psychological strains 141 (79) 38 M 46 (66) 24 Faculty 80 (78) 23
F 94 (87) 14 Staff 61 (80) 15
Physical strains
Tiredness 25 (14) 154 M 8 (11) 72 Faculty 11 (11) 92
F 17 (16) 91 Staff 14 (18) 62
Physical tense 7 (4) 172 M 3 (4) 67 Faculty 3 (3) 100
F 4 (4) 104 Staff 4 (5) 72
Being sick 7 (4) 172 M 0 (0) 70 Faculty 5 (5) 98
F 7 (6) 101 Staff 2 (3) 74
Stomach problem 6 (3) 171 M 1 (1) 69 Faculty 4 (4) 99
F 5 (5) 103 Staff 2 (3) 74
Other physical strains 12 (7) 167 M 3 (4) 67 Faculty 6 (6) 97
F 6 (6) 102 Staff 6 (8) 70
All physical strains 57 (32) 122 M 15 (21) 55 Faculty 29 (28) 74
F 39 (36) 69 Staff 28 (37) 48
Note. M ⫽ male; F ⫽ female. Percentage of men/women and faculty/staff who reported the stressor or strain is in
parentheses.

For job strains, the independent-samples t tests
revealed that women experienced significantly
more depression (t ⫽ ⫺3.14, df ⫽ 283, p ⬍ .001),
turnover intentions (t ⫽ ⫺3.24, df ⫽ 283, p ⬍
.001), and physical symptoms (t ⫽ ⫺2.62, df ⫽
282, p ⬍ .001) than did their male counterparts.
Similarly, support staff reported significantly more
depression (t ⫽ ⫺1.85, df ⫽ 284, p ⫽ .07), turn-
over intentions (t ⫽ ⫺2.92, df ⫽ 288, p ⫽ .004),
and physical symptoms (t ⫽ ⫺2.69, df ⫽ 286, p ⫽
.008) than did faculty. Two-way ANOVAs were
used to examine the main and interaction effects of
gender and occupation on job strains (Hypothesis
2, 4, and 5). As can be seen from Table 5, gender
364 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI

Table 3
Main Effect of Gender, Occupation, and Interaction Effect of Gender and Occupation: Log-Linear
Analysis on Qualitative Data
Variable Coefficient z p Variable Coefficient z p
Organizational contraints Anger
Gender .07 .59 .56 Gender .35 1.84† .07
Occupation ⫺.05 ⫺.42 .68 Occupation ⫺.33 ⫺1.71† .09
Gender ⫻ occupation ⫺.01 ⫺.07 .94 Gender ⫻ occupation ⫺.12 ⫺.63 .52
Workload Frustration
Gender ⫺.05 ⫺.35 .72 Gender ⫺.02 ⫺.14 .88
Occupation ⫺.10 ⫺.79 .42 Occupation .36 2.71ⴱⴱ .006
Gender ⫻ occupation ⫺.25 ⫺1.89† .06 Gender ⫻ occupation .09 .65 .26
Interpersonal conflict Overwhelm
Gender .07 .64 .52 Gender .14 .68 .50
Occupation .24 2.25ⴱ .02 Occupation ⫺.11 ⫺.52 .60
Gender ⫻ occupation .25 2.42ⴱ .01 Gender ⫻ occupation ⫺.07 ⫺.35 .72
Lack of job autonomy Sadness
Gender .11 1.06 .28 Gender .14 .68 .50
Occupation .08 .78 .44 Occupation ⫺.16 ⫺.79 .43
Gender ⫻occupation .15 1.39 .16 Gender ⫻ occupation ⫺.02 ⫺.08 .94
Work mistakes Anxiety
Gender ⫺.51 ⫺1.61 .11 Gender ⫺.17 ⫺1.32 .19
Occupation ⫺.18 ⫺.58 .56 Occupation .03 .20 .84
Gender ⫻ occupation ⫺.10 ⫺.32 .74 Gender ⫻ occupation .06 .47 .63
Overall psychological strains Overall physical strains
Gender .21 2.21ⴱ .03 Gender .12 1.27 .20
Occupation ⫺.13 ⫺1.32 .19 Occupation .09 .89 .37
Gender ⫻ occupation .04 .42 .67 Gender ⫻ occupation .08 .86 .39
ⴱ ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01. †
p ⬍ .10.

was significant for depression, and occupation was
marginally significant for turnover intentions. As
was predicted, women reported more depression
than did men, and staff reported a higher level of
turnover intentions than did faculty, thus partially
supporting Hypotheses 2 and 4. Consistent with
Hypothesis 5, the interaction effects were signifi-
cant for negative emotions and turnover intentions.
Female faculty (M ⫽ 2.20) had the highest level of
negative emotions, followed by male staff (M ⫽

Table 4
Correlation Matrix and Descriptive Information of Quantitative Job Stressors and Strains
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
1. Interpersonal conflict 1
2. Job autonomy ⫺.11 1
3. Frustration .14ⴱ ⫺.12ⴱ 1
4. Depression .26ⴱⴱ ⫺.09 .28ⴱⴱ 1
5. Negative emotions .34ⴱⴱ ⫺.07 .48ⴱⴱ .47ⴱⴱ 1
6. Job satisfaction ⫺.30ⴱⴱ .18ⴱⴱ ⫺.36ⴱⴱ ⫺.38ⴱⴱ ⫺.57ⴱⴱ 1
7. Turnover intention .34ⴱⴱ ⫺.16ⴱⴱ .43ⴱⴱ .37ⴱⴱ .56ⴱⴱ ⫺.60ⴱⴱ 1
8. Physical symptom .11 ⫺.05 .19ⴱⴱ .52ⴱⴱ .34ⴱⴱ ⫺.22ⴱⴱ .26ⴱⴱ 1
n 289 296 295 289 298 299 290 288
M 1.19 5.63 3.31 0.51 1.97 4.91 2.14 1.28
SD 0.49 1.67 1.25 0.50 0.78 1.13 1.13 0.23
␣ — .95 .65 .86 .85 .82 — —
Note. M ⫽ mean; SD ⫽ standard deviation.
ⴱ
p ⬍ .05. ⴱⴱ p ⬍ .01.
 JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT 365

Table 5
Main Effect of Gender, Occupation, and Interaction Effect of Gender and Occupation: Two-Way Analysis
of Variance on Quantitative Data
Variable df F p Variable df F p
Interpersonal conflict Negative emotions
Gender 1 .02 .88 Gender 1 .30 .58
Occupation 1 1.53 .22 Occupation 1 .01 .91
Gender ⫻ occupation 1 2.08 .15 Gender ⫻ occupation 1 6.03ⴱ .02
Job autonomy Job satisfaction
Gender 1 .62 .43 Gender 1 .32 .58
Occupation 1 .17 .68 Occupation 1 1.28 .26
Gender ⫻ occupation 1 1.48 .22 Gender ⫻ occupation 1 1.26 .26
Frustration Turnover intentions
Gender 1 .24 .62 Gender 1 2.25 .14
Occupation 1 .51 .47 Occupation 1 3.84† .05
Gender ⫻ occupation 1 1.93 .17 Gender ⫻ occupation 1 4.52ⴱ .03
Depression Physical symptoms
Gender 1 4.89ⴱ .03 Gender 1 2.21 .14
Occupation 1 .21 .65 Occupation 1 1.39 .24
Gender ⫻ occupation 1 1.55 .22 Gender ⫻ occupation 1 .02 .88
ⴱ ⴱⴱ
p ⬍ .05. p ⬍ .01. †
p ⬍ .10.

2.16), female staff (M ⫽ 1.94), and male faculty
(M ⫽ 1.86). Male staff (M ⫽ 2.41) had higher
turnover intentions, followed by female faculty
(M ⫽ 2.33), female staff (M ⫽ 2.31), and male
faculty (M ⫽ 1.74).
Moderating Effect of Gender and
Occupational Status on Interpersonal
Conflict–Job Strain Relations
Hypotheses 6 and 7 state that the relations between
interpersonal conflicts and job strains are moderated
by gender and occupational status, respectively. The
moderated regression analysis revealed significant
moderating effects of gender on the interpersonal
conflict–negative emotion relation (⌬R2 ⫽ .05, p ⬍
.001), controlled for occupation. As can be seen from
Figure 1, contrary to our hypothesis, the slope for
men is steeper than the slope for women, indicating
that there was a stronger relation between interper-
sonal conflicts and negative emotions for men than
for women.
When we controlled for gender, the moderated
regression analyses revealed a significant interaction

Figure 1. Moderator effect of gender on interpersonal conflict–negative emotions relation,

while controlling for the effect of occupation.
366 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI

effect between interpersonal conflict and occupa-
tional status in predicting negative emotions (⌬ R2 ⫽
.07, p ⬍ .001) and job satisfaction (⌬ R2 ⫽ .035, p ⬍
.001). The form of the moderating effect is presented
in Figures 2a and 2b. As was predicted, the relations
between interpersonal conflicts and negative emo-
tions/job satisfaction were stronger for faculty than
for staff.
Discussion
Do Men and Women Experience Job Stressors
and Strains Differently?
Our qualitative data confirm that different societal
expectations for men and women caused them to
experience different stressors at work. Whereas
workload and work mistakes are cited more fre-
quently by men, interpersonal conflicts and lack of
job autonomy are top stressors for women. These
results are consistent with previous findings (e.g.,
McDonough & Walters, 2001).
Both the qualitative and quantitative data suggest
that women might experience more interpersonal
conflicts at work than do men. However, the gender
difference lost significance when occupation was
controlled. Looking at the conflict incidents reported
by each gender and occupational group, we find that
female faculty had more conflicts than did male fac-
ulty, whereas male staff had more conflicts than did
female staff. Taken together, our results suggest that

Figure 2. Moderator effect of occupational status on (a) interpersonal conflict–negative

emotions relation and (b) interpersonal conflict–job satisfaction relation, while controlling for
gender.
 JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
what may appear to have been a gender effect might
well have been due to occupation, given that gender
and occupation were confounded. The same may
have been true of prior studies that found gender
effects when type of occupation or organizational
level was not controlled.
Women reported more overall psychological
strain (qualitative), anger (qualitative), and depres-
sion (quantitative) than did men, when we con-
trolled for occupation. According to the differen-
tial vulnerability hypothesis (McDonough &
Walters, 2001; Roxburgh, 1996), women tend to
experience more job strains than do men when
under similar working conditions. Female employ-
ees may be more vulnerable in stressful work sit-
uations, as has been suggested by Jurado et al.
(2005) and Lidwall and Marklund (2006).
Do Faculty and Support Staff Experience Job
Stressors and Strains Differently?
Both the qualitative and quantitative data indicate
nonsignificant occupational differences in interper-
sonal conflicts. As is revealed by the qualitative data,
the patterns of conflicts are similar between faculty
and staff, with most coworker conflicts, followed by
supervisor conflicts, and conflicts with students or
administration.
The occupational difference in job autonomy is not
significant. Faculty and staff reported a similar num-
ber of “lack of job autonomy” incidents. These find-
ings may be due to the nature of the organization,
which may allow an unusually high level of job
autonomy to support staff.
Occupational differences in job strains are re-
vealed by both qualitative and quantitative methods.
Support staff reported higher levels of frustration
(quantitative) and turnover intentions (quantitative),
whereas faculty reported more anger (qualitative),
when we controlled for gender. Our results are con-
sistent with those of Narayanan et al. (1999). In a
stressful situation, employees with higher social sta-
tus may be less inclined to inhibit anger than would
employees at a lower social status. Employees with
lower social status may report a more inner-directed
form of emotion, such as frustration, because they do
not have the power to change the situation.
Interaction Between Gender and Occupation
for Job Stressors and Strains
As was predicted, the underrepresented groups
(male staff and female faculty) reported more conflict
367
incidents (qualitative) and a higher level of negative
emotions (quantitative) and turnover intentions
(quantitative) than did the numerical majorities (fe-
male staff and male faculty).
We also found that male faculty reported the high-
est workload (qualitative). It seems that male faculty
are under the highest perceived work pressure, so
they take on more workload and responsibilities,
although whether this is voluntary or not is unclear. It
is worth noting that male faculty have reported the
fewest interpersonal conflicts, negative emotions, and
turnover intentions, indicating that even though they
have more work to do, they do not experience more
strains. Taken together, we conclude that gender in-
teracts with occupation in predicting employees’ job
stressors and strains. Generally speaking, the unrep-
resented groups tend to experience more job stressors
and job strains.
Moderator Effects of Gender and Occupation
on Interpersonal Conflict–Strain Relations
Controlling for the effect of occupation, we find
that gender moderated the relation between interper-
sonal conflicts and negative emotions. However, con-
trary to our prediction, interpersonal conflicts have a
stronger impact on men than on women. Taking a
closer look at the conflict incidents, we find that the
patterns of interpersonal conflicts provided by male
and female employees are similar, with most being
coworker conflicts. In most conflict cases, men reported
anger, whereas women reported a broader variety of
less intense emotions, such as frustration. Therefore,
one possible explanation is that men experience more
intense emotional reactions to conflict. Another possible
explanation is that women have better social skills and
may cope better than men with conflict.
Controlling for gender, we find significant moder-
ating effects of occupational status on interpersonal
conflict–negative emotion and job satisfaction rela-
tions. For a higher-status occupation (e.g., professor),
there are negative relations between interpersonal
conflicts and both negative emotion and job dissatis-
faction. For a lower-status occupation (e.g., support
staff), the relations are smaller in magnitude. The
qualitative data suggest that both faculty and staff
reported conflicts most often with coworkers. However,
faculty were more likely to report anger, whereas staff
reported milder reactions such as frustration. As with
the results comparing men and women, it is possible
that faculty tend to experience more intense negative
emotions in response to interpersonal conflicts at
368 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI
work. Because they work more independently, they
are less likely to inhibit their negative emotions and
reactions. Interpersonal conflicts might be more se-
vere and longer lasting, which leads to greater strains.
Limitations and Future Research
There are some limitations to this study, which
should be kept in mind. Perhaps most important is
that we examined only two occupations, so general-
izability to other occupations is not certain. To more
completely test the idea that being underrepresented
has an impact on stressors and strains, future research
should include samples from a variety of occupations
that vary in their gender distribution. In addition, the
response rate for the qualitative data was relatively
low. Since the qualitative approach requested more of
the participants in having to write narratives, it was
more difficult to collect the qualitative data. It would
be ideal to have a larger sample in order to better
study low-frequency stressors. Nonetheless, we did
have 179 stressful incidents in our sample, which
covered a good range of job stressors and strains
experienced by university employees. It is worth
noting that the design of this study does not allow
confident causal conclusions, nor is it able to rule out
potential biases that might have affected results.
Despite limitations, there are notable findings in
this study. First, we found that occupation was con-
founded with gender, and what may have appeared to
be gender effects in some cases were likely occupa-
tion effects. Thus, it is important to rule out occupa-
tional effects when studying gender differences in job
stressors and strains. Second, occupation had a sig-
nificant impact on employees’ job strains after con-
trolling for gender, thus showing that occupation
differences can be important. Third, occupation and
gender interacted in that the underrepresented groups
tended to experience more stressors and strains at
work. We suspect in some cases it may be the gender
ratio of the occupation rather than gender itself that is
important. Fourth, gender and occupational status
significantly moderated the relations between inter-
personal conflicts and job strains. By examining the
stressful incidents provided by each group, we found
that male employees and faculty reacted more strongly
in conflict situations than did female employees and
support staff. Overall, this study has shown that gender
and occupation are important variables to study together
in the job stress domain, as is suggested by both our
qualitative and our quantitative data.
References
Anderson, M. L. (1997). Thinking about women: Sociolog-
ical perspectives on sex and gender (4th ed.). Boston:
Allyn & Bacon.
Appelberg, K., Romanov, K., Heikkilä, K., Honkasalo,
M. L., & Koskenvuo, M. (1996). Interpersonal conflicts
as a predictor of work disability: A follow-up study of
15,348 Finnish employees. Journal of Psychosomatic
Research, 40, 157–167.
Belle, D. (1987). Gender differences in the social modera-
tors of stress. In R. C. Barnett, I. Biener, & G. K. Baruch
(Eds.), Gender and stress (pp. 257–277). New York: Free
Press.
Burke, R. J., & McKeen, C. A. (1996). Do women at the top
make a difference? Gender proportions and the experi-
ences of managerial and professional women. Human
Relations, 49, 1093–1104.
Cammann, C., Fichman, M., Jenkins, D., & Klesh, J.
(1979). The Michigan Organizational Assessment Ques-
tionnaire. Unpublished manuscript, University of Mich-
igan, Ann Arbor.
Day, A. L., & Livingstone, H. A. (2003). Gender differ-
ences in perceptions of stressors and utilization of social
support among university students. Canadian Journal of
Behavioural Science, 35, 73– 83.
Dworkin, A. G., Chafetz, J. S., & Dworkin, R. J. (1986).
The effects of tokenism on work alienation among
urban public school teachers. Work & Occupations,
13, 1399 –1420.
Frankenhaeuser, M., Rauste von Wright, M., Collins, A.,
von Wright, J., Sedvall, G., & Swahn, C. (1978). Sex
differences in psychoneuroendocrine reactions to exam-
ination stress. Psychosomatic Medicine, 40, 334 –343.
Frone, M. R. (2000). Interpersonal conflict at work and
psychological outcomes: Testing a model among young
workers. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 5,
246 –255.
Greenglass, E. R. (1991). Burnout and gender: Theoretical
and organizational implications, Canadian Psychology,
32, 562–574.
Greenglass, E. R. (2003). Work stress, coping, and social
support: Implications for women’s occupational wellbe-
ing. In D. L. Nelson and R. J. Burke (Eds.), Gender, work
stress and health (pp. 85–96). Washington, DC: Plenum
Press and American Psychological Association.
Griffin, M. L. (2006). Gender and stress: A comparative as-
sessment of sources of stress among correctional officers.
Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 22, 4 –25.
Guppy, A., & Rick, J. (1996). The influences of gender and
grade on perceived work stress and job satisfaction in
white collar employees. Work & Stress, 10, 154 –164.
Hackman, J. R., & Oldham, G. R. (1976). Motivation through
the design of work: Test of a theory. Organizational Be-
havior & Human Decision Processes, 16, 250 –279.
Hall, E. M. (1989). Gender, work control, and stress: A
theoretical discussion and empirical test. International
Journal of Health Services, 19, 725–745.
Idaszak, J. R., & Drasgow, F. (1987). A revision of the Job
Diagnostic Survey: Elimination of a measurement arti-
fact. Journal of Applied Psychology, 72, 69 –74.
Iwasaki, Y., MacKay, K. J., & Ristock, J. (2004). Gender-
based analyses of stress among professional managers:
 JOB STRESS: GENDER AND OCCUPATION EFFECT
An exploratory qualitative study. International Journal
of Stress Management, 11, 56 –79.
Jackson, P. B., Thoits, P. A., & Taylor, H. F. (1995).
Composition of the workplace and psychological well-
being: The effects of tokenism on America’s Black elite.
Social Forces, 74, 1543–1557.
Jick, T. D., & Mitz, L. F. (1985). Sex differences in work
stress. Academy of Management Review, 10, 408 – 420.
Josephs, R. A., Markus, H. R., & Tafarodi, R. W. (1992).
Gender and self esteem. Journal of Personality and So-
cial Psychology, 63, 391– 402.
Judge, T. A., Boudreau, J. W., & Bretz, R. D., Jr. (1996).
Job and life attitudes of male executives. Journal of
Applied Psychology, 79, 767–782.
Jurado, D., Gurpegui, M., Moreno, O., Fernandez, M. C.,
Luna, J. D., & Galvez, R. (2005). Association of person-
ality and work conditions with depressive symptoms.
European Psychiatry, 20, 213–222.
Kasl, S. V. (1998). Measuring job stressors and studying the
health impact of the work environment: An epidemiolog-
ical commentary. Journal of Occupational Health Psy-
chology, 3, 390 – 401.
Keenan, A., & Newton, T. J. (1985). Stressful events, stres-
sors and psychological strains in young professional en-
gineers. Journal of Occupational Behavior, 6, 151–156.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of behavioral re-
search: Educational and psychological inquiry. New
York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.
Kirkcaldy, B., Brown, J., Furnham, A., & Trimpop, R.
(2002). Job stress and dissatisfaction: Comparing male
and female medical practitioners and auxiliary personnel.
Revue Europeenne de Psychologie Appliquee [European
Review of Applied Psychology], 52, 51– 61.
Lackritz, J. R. (2004). Exploring burnout among university
faculty: Incidence, performance, and demographic is-
sues. Teaching and Teacher Education, 20, 713–729.
Lidwall, U., & Marklund, S. (2006). What is healthy work
for women and men? A case-control study of gender- and
sector-specific effects of psycho-social working condi-
tions on long-term sickness absence. Work: Journal of
Prevention, Assessment & Rehabilitation, 27, 153–163.
Liu, C., Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. (2005). The relation of job
control with job strains: A comparison of multiple data
sources. Journal of Occupational and Organizational
Psychology, 78, 325–336.
Liu, C., Spector, P., & Shi, L. (2007). Cross-national job
stress: A quantitative and qualitative study. Journal of
Organizational Behavior, 28, 209–239.
Lord, C. G., & Saenz, D. S. (1985). Memory deficits and
memory surfeits: Differential cognitive consequences of
tokenism for tokens and observers. Journal of Personal-
ity and Social Psychology, 49, 918 –926.
Marchand, A., Durand, P., & Demers, A. (2005). Work and
mental health: The experience of the Quebec workforce
between 1987 and 1998. Work: Journal of Prevention,
Assessment & Rehabilitation, 25, 135–142.
McDonough, P., & Walters, V. (2001). Gender and health:
Reassessing patterns and explanations. Social Science
and Medicine, 52, 547–559.
Menon, S., Narayanan, L., & Spector, P. E. (1996). Time
urgency and its relation to occupational stressors and
health outcomes for health care professionals. In C. D.
Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and emotion,
Vol. 16. Washington, DC: Taylor & Francis.
369
Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a
context of hostility toward women: Implications for em-
ployees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology, 9, 107–122.
Misra, R., McKean, M., West, S., & Russo, T. (2000).
Academic stress of college students: Comparison of stu-
dent and faculty perceptions. College Student Journal,
34, 236 –245.
Narayanan, L., Menon, S., & Spector, P. E. (1999). Stress in
the workplace: A comparison of gender and occupations.
Journal of Organizational Behavior, 20, 63–73.
Occupational Information Network. (2007). OⴱNET data-
base. Retrieved August 8, 2007 from http://www.online.
onetcenter.org
Ott, E. M. (1989). Effects of the male–female ratio at work:
Policewomen and male nurses. Psychology of Women
Quarterly, 13, 1941–1957.
Owen, S. S. (2006). Occupational stress among correctional
supervisors. Prison Journal, 86, 164 –181.
Parkes, K. R. (1985). Stressful episodes reported by first-
year student nurses: A descriptive account. Social Sci-
ence Medicine, 20, 945–953.
Peters, L. H., & O’Connor, E. J. (1980). The behavioral and
affective consequences of performance-related situa-
tional variables. Organizational Behavior and Human
Performance, 25, 79 –96.
Pines, A. M., & Zaidman, N. (2003). Gender, culture and
social support: A male–female, Israeli Jewish–Arab com-
parison. Sex Roles, 49, 571–577.
Pousette, A., & Hanse, J. J. (2002). Job characteristics as
predictors of ill-health and sickness absenteeism in dif-
ferent occupational types: A multigroup structural equa-
tion modeling approach. Work and Stress, 16, 229 –250.
Roxburgh, S. (1996). Gender differences in work and well-
being: Effects of exposure and vulnerability. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 37, 265–277.
Sharada, N., & Raju, M. V. R. (2001). Gender and role
stress in organizations. Journal of Indian Psychology, 19,
50 –55.
Spector, P. E., Dwyer, D. J., & Jex, S. M. (1988). The
relationship of job stressors to affective, health, and
performance outcomes: A comparison of multiple data
sources. Journal of Applied Psychology, 73, 11–19.
Spector, P. E., & Jex, S. M. (1998). Development of four
self-report measures of job stressors and strains: Inter-
personal Conflict at Work Scale, Organizational Con-
straints Scale, Quantitative Workload Inventory, and
Physical Symptoms Inventory. Journal of Occupational
Health Psychology, 3, 356 –367.
Spielberger, C. D., & Vagg, P. R. (1999). The Job Stress
Survey: JSS professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psycho-
logical Assessment Resources.
Spitzer, R. L., Kroenke, K., & Williams, J. B. W. (1999).
Validation and utility of a self-report version of PRIME-
MD: The PHQ Primary Care Study. Journal of the Amer-
ican Medical Association, 282, 1737–1744.
Stewart, A. J., & Lykes, M. B. (1985). Conceptualizing
gender in personality theory and research. In A. J. Stew-
art and M. B. Lykes (Eds.), Gender and personality:
Current perspectives on theory and research (pp. 2–13).
Durham, NC: Duck University.
Taris, T. W., Bakker, A. B., Schaufeli, W. B., Stoffelsen, J.,
& van Dierendonck, D. (2005). Job control and burnout
across occupations. Psychological Reports, 97, 955–961.
370 LIU, SPECTOR, AND SHI

Taylor, S. E., Fiske, S. T., Etcoff, N. L., & Ruderman, A. J.
(1978). Categorical and contextual bases of person mem-
ory and stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 36, 778 –793.
Thompson, B. M., Kirk, A., & Brown, D. (2006). Sources of
stress in policewomen: A three-factor model. Interna-
tional Journal of Stress Management, 13, 309 –328.
Vagg, P. R., Spielberger, C. D., & Wasala, C. F. (2002).
Effects of organizational level and gender on stress in the
workplace. International Journal of Stress Management,
9, 243–261.
Van Katwyk, P. T., Fox, S., Spector, P. E., & Kelloway,
E. K. (1999). Using the Job-Related Affective Well-
Being Scale (JAWS) to investigate affective responses to
work stressors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychol-
ogy, 5, 219 –230.
Verbrugge, L. M. (1985). Gender and health: An update on
hypotheses and evidence. Journal of Health and Social
Behavior, 26, 156 –182.
Weber, R. P. (1990). Basic content analysis. Newbury Park,
CA: Sage.
Weinstein, H., & Zappert, L. (1980, September). Stress and
the working woman. Paper presented at the annual meet-
ing of the American Psychological Association, Mon-
treal, Quebec, Canada.
Received June 11, 2007
Revision received March 2, 2008
Accepted March 5, 2008 y

Members of Underrepresented Groups:

Reviewers for Journal Manuscripts Wanted
If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts for APA journals, the APA Publications and
Communications Board would like to invite your participation. Manuscript reviewers are vital to the
publications process. As a reviewer, you would gain valuable experience in publishing. The P&C
Board is particularly interested in encouraging members of underrepresented groups to participate
more in this process.

If you are interested in reviewing manuscripts, please write to the address below. Please note the
following important points:

• To be selected as a reviewer, you must have published articles in peer-reviewed journals. The
experience of publishing provides a reviewer with the basis for preparing a thorough, objective
review.

• To be selected, it is critical to be a regular reader of the five to six empirical journals that are most
central to the area or journal for which you would like to review. Current knowledge of recently
published research provides a reviewer with the knowledge base to evaluate a new submission
within the context of existing research.

• To select the appropriate reviewers for each manuscript, the editor needs detailed information.
Please include with your letter your vita. In the letter, please identify which APA journal(s) you
are interested in, and describe your area of expertise. Be as specific as possible. For example,
“social psychology” is not sufficient—you would need to specify “social cognition” or “attitude
change” as well.

• Reviewing a manuscript takes time (1– 4 hours per manuscript reviewed). If you are selected to
review a manuscript, be prepared to invest the necessary time to evaluate the manuscript
thoroughly.

Write to Journals Office, American Psychological Association, 750 First Street, NE, Washington,
DC 20002-4242.